Man, if the Lefties are starting to go after this, it must be really blowing up in their faces.

Insta's been pushing this particular crusade, to his everlasting credit, but this is the first time in my memory the Lefties have come down on a media lie (and that goes back to the '64 Republican convention).

And I thought I was overly naive and a rose-colored glasses wearing Pollyanna

The comments only get worse.

"Geraldo's deliberately inflammatory 'hoodies' comment was at least as bad as the NBC error".

Because, sure, Geraldo specifically tried to paint a specific person out to be a bigot when there was a movement afoot to "get" him.

Same thing.

I love the whole "there was no threat of violence". Sure, if you ignore all of the comments by the CBC about how he needs to be arrested for his "protection", the bounty by the Black Panthers, Spike Lee and Roseanne tweeting his address...

This is starting to remind me of an old story: When Star Trek first appeared on NBC, the network altered its promotional materials to hide Spock's pointed ears and eyebrows - they feared some might find him 'Satanic.' Writer Harlan Ellison found one of the brochures and when he tried to find out who had authorized the change, the network fired the first guy they found in the art department with an airbrush.

It's sad to realize that nearly 50 years later, NBC is still doing the same thing.

Hi Ann. Remember when we were arguing whether or not Obamacare could be considered a tax?Via 'The Politico" It seems the administration has diverted 500 million dollars to the IRS for penalty enforcement of the healthcare mandate. So if it isn't a tax, why is the IRS in charge of collecting the money? Hmmm?

The whole country has to pay for the damage done to racial harmony. The mark has been put into people's minds, and saying "Oh, I was wrong" isn't going to erase the line, anymore than running an iron over a crease gets rid of it.

Why, if it was a careless mistake when the piece was edited down for time, did they include the final "he looks black." The top of the story already included the fact that the dead teenager was black. I don't buy the mistake defence either.

I'm not defending them, Fen. Systemic, irrevocable incompetence is a pretty serious flaw. I'm talking about more than a slip of the editors digital pen. The incompetence goes to a failure to work hard enough to understand an issue in other than the most superficial terms.

Was there a deliberate and malicious effort to miscast the meaning of what Zimmerman said? Certainly possible, but I have not seen enough to enable me to conclude one way ora another on that question. You seem to believe that only one inference can be drawn from the resulting quote. I think your own bias is showing.

Between NBC and CNN -- who ran the accusation Zimmerman used a racial slur on the telephone when CNN's own editors could not confirm that -- yeah, I'd say there's plenty of evidence to point towards "deliberate hatchet job."

I give people the benefit of the doubt, not my Social Security Number and bank PIN.

Also, the guy who wrote the potentially offensive headline about Lin was outed by name.

That was a mistake that even the person offended (Lin) did not seem to be offended by, and yet we got the offender's full history and name within, what, days? Those are the rules we decided to play by, so, God willing, let's play by them.

The public deserves the names of the people who did this, so we know to properly judge their work in the future.

"Was there a deliberate and malicious effort to miscast the meaning of what Zimmerman said? Certainly possible, but I have not seen enough to enable me to conclude one way ora another on that question."

And the IRS is in charge of collecting [...] c'mon this isn't that hard.

There is no "if". Nothing in the law says "if the IRS collects it, it is a tax". You're committing the basic logical fallacy of assuming that if all X are Y, all Y are X. :)

There are plenty of government departments that have duties unrelated to their core purpose. For example, the primary function of the Secret Service is to investigate crimes relating to US currency. It also bodyguards politicians. That doesn't mean assassinating the President is a crime against United States currency. :)

"You seem to believe that only one inference can be drawn from the resulting quote."

There are two possibilities. It was done on purpose, or the person who did it is too stupid to understand the change in meaning. But someone in that position is very unlikely to be stupid. You are left with only one reasonable conclusion.

Radar Console Operator: "We’ve had some contacts in our sector and there’s a real bogie. It’s East China Sea. The best address I can give you is Tongchang-ri space center. This thing looks like its up to no good, or its on drugs or something. It’s raining and its just launching up, spinning about."

CiC: “Okay. And this bogie, is it white, black, or Hispanic?”.

Radar Console Operator: "It looks North Korean. And the return is strange. Cross-section suggests its tipped with a hoodie."

I'm generally not a "Trayvon Martin supporter," as many in the comments have termed those who are upset by what happened to him. I don't really understand why this story is national news in the first place. People get murdered every day in all sorts of different, horrible circumstances. It rarely warrants national media attention.

That said, Althouse, why don't you blog about local news stories like this one, which is at least as offensive and irresponsible as the story that is the focus of this post.

I think I know the answer: you generally prefer the contrarian narrative. Be careful about stones, glass houses, etc. Just sayin'.

Now that we're learning there have been at least TWO disgusting white supremacists writing for The National Review, we need some sort of explanation from Rich Lowry about what exactly is going on at that magazine, as well as a statement letting us know whether or not they actually do oppose racism. Keeping it short isn't good enough.

I've tried, but I cannot think of a plausible chain of events where that particular edit -- both audio and print -- could repeatedly happen with honest intent. Not unless "NBC" is really just one guy in a Starbuck's with serious short-term memory loss, very poor mouse skills, and a vague and incomplete understanding of ellipsis.

After reading his LGF link, it's clear that LoafingOaf's apparently irrelevant post is actually a very clever meta-contextual critique of selective quotation presented within the framework of a questionable and unsubstantiated narrative construct. Bravo, Oaf. Positively Swiftian.

To the person who said this was off topic: Perhaps. I looked at the tags "journalism", "racial politics" and "propaganda" and thought it sorta fit -- National Review has multiple writers spreading racist propaganda.

To the folks attacking because the link is to a blog they dislike: Um, I checked Robert Weissberg's Wikipedia entry and it does indeed say: "In his 2010 Bad Students, Not Bad Schools, he claims that Hispanics and blacks have lower IQs than whites and Asians, a difference, he claims, that is genetically determined."

And he is a writer for National Review. NRO archives: http://www.nationalreview.com/author/249616

Oh, he's also a writer for Takimag, like that John Derbyshire scumbag. And a hate group called VDARE.

What difference does your opinion of the blog that broke the story have on this? I got to the blog post because Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates tweeted the link. Are you saying Weissberg is not a racist?

National Review has some explaining to do. Enough brushing it under the rug.

Which is precisely how I feel about the much, much deadlier Marxists on faculty at many universities. Marxism has killed more people than National Socialism by an order of magnitude, and yet they are still not only permitted to teach at universities, but are in fact usually celebrated.

Let's clean up this problem (which I hope you would agree is much more immediate a threat, given that these are individuals who are engaged in teaching our young people), then we can worry about The National Review and their much more limited sphere of influence. Or do you have no problem with people esposuing a philosophy that has repeatedly resulted in mass murder on a staggering scale? Full disclosure: I am a faculty member at a unviersity, and I have never read (nor plan to read, regardless of the latest outrage) The National Review.

I do agree, things should be transparent and open. But, were I to take a moral stand on that, I certainly wouldn't do it over penny ante bloggers when the most transparent administration ever is blocking Congressional witnesses, firing and intimidating inspector generals, and covering up misuse of government dollars in rushed, politicized loans.

If we're going to call squirrel for bad behavior that is being hidden by people in power, by God, let's go to the top of the food chain.

'Our present generous system, sad to say, keeps on rewarding the failing, including students, and as any economist will tell you, if you reward it, you get more. If students refuse to attend school, forcing them is wasteful and hurts those wanting to learn'. Americans are increasingly alarmed over our nation's educational deficiencies. Though anxieties about schooling are unending, especially with public institutions, these problems are more complex than institutional failure. Expenditures for education have exploded, and far exceed inflation and the rising costs of health care, but academic achievement remains flat. Many students are unable to graduate from high school, let alone obtain a college degree. And if they do make it to college, they are often forced into remedial courses. Why, despite this fiscal extravagance, are educational disappointments so widespread? In "Bad Students, Not Bad Schools", Robert Weissberg argues that the answer to this is something everybody knows to be true but is afraid to say in public - America's educational woes too often reflect the demographic mix of students. Schools today are filled with millions of youngsters, too many of whom struggle with the English language or simply have mediocre intellectual ability. Their lackluster performances are probably impervious to the current reform prescriptions regardless of the remedy's ideological derivation. Making matters worse, retention of students in school is embraced as a philosophy even if it impedes the learning of other students. Weissberg argues that most of America's educational woes would vanish if indifferent, troublesome students were permitted to leave when they had absorbed as much as they could learn; they would quickly be replaced by learning-hungry students, including many new immigrants from other countries. American education survives since we import highly intelligent, technically skillful foreigners just as we import oil but this may not last forever. When educational establishments get serious about world-class mathematics and science, and permit serious students to learn, problems will dissolve. Rewarding the smartest, not spending fortunes in a futile quest to uplift the bottom should become official policy. This book is a bracing reminder of the risks of political manipulation of education, and argues that the measure of policy should be academic achievment.'

To the person who said this was off topic: Perhaps. I looked at the tags "journalism", "racial politics" and "propaganda" and thought it sorta fit -- National Review has multiple writers spreading racist propaganda.

Ah, so you're just trolling for some kind of inflammatory response. Got it.

BTW, I consider The Nation and The Root to carry multiple writers spreading racist propaganda. I don't troll every thread about race just to start challenging everyone to a denounce-off.

The media outlet currently getting my wrath is Newsday, the local monopoly newspaper. There is a forest fire burning out of control about ten miles away from me, with houses having been destroyed, yet when I got to Newsday's site to read about the fire all I get to see, as a "non-subscriber," is a c**k-teasing sentence or two. To hell with them.

Crimso: Hmm, I don't know why you're going off the topic of journalism and racial politics, but are you suggesting that professors who have been influenced by Marxist analysis should be banned from universities because communist regimes mass murdered millions of people?

I think universities should expose students to a wide diversity of philosophies, and should not be monopolized by the left or any sort of brainwashing agenda.

Back to my topic: I find it interesting that Althouse had a post today about whether it's unfair for Obama to use the label social Darwinism when it's difficult to disentangle the term from racism and eugenics. But now we have found the leading conservative magazine in American employing multiple writers who are what's called "race realism" racists. And here at Althouse we have numerous commenters who are down with that stuff.

LoafingOaf: how do you feel about professors influenced by Nazism? Are they okay, or would you expect them to not be hired in the first place? If you expect them not to be hired, why not? Would the same reasons apply to Marxists? I think they should.

And it's no so far OT. You're up-in-arms about the racists, and I'm pointing out that as bad as they are, the Marxists (about whom nary a peep is heard) are an order of magnitude worse.

P.S. When Instapundit was ignoring the Derbyshire/National Review scandal (and then later pretending he was unable to access the racist essay) he was simultaneously linking - without comment - to a Robert Weissberg essay at the National Review. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/140320/

He's writing about Orwell's term "Crimestop" (though he calls it "Crimethink") and how "professors can conveniently sweep away an unwanted, plain-to-see, in-your-face reality."

And he includes stuff like: "Try announcing at the faculty colloquium that in every racially mixed nation on the planet, no exceptions, certain ethnic or racial groups have a higher crime rate and lower incomes than others. Don’t expect a fact-based refutation. Instead, the rejoinder will not be that this statement is incorrect; rather, the truth-teller will be told that this is a 'dangerous stereotype' and should be unspeakable given the unnecessary hurt it will cause."

He's a brave truth-teller, fresh back from a white nationalist gathering where he reportedly argued in favor of finding segregated white enclaves to live in.

LoafingOaf: how do you feel about professors influenced by Nazism? Are they okay, or would you expect them to not be hired in the first place? If you expect them not to be hired, why not? Would the same reasons apply to Marxists? I think they should.

I think a Nazi is, by definition, racist and anti-Semitic, as well as genocidal, and thus evil and incompatible with civilization. No, I don't think a school should knowingly hire a Nazi. And I don't think students should tolerate being in a classroom taught by a Nazi.

I don't feel that way about people who are influenced by Marxist philosophy to one degree or another. Why do you think the same rules should apply? Because Stalin and Mao and other commie leaders killed tons of people it means that anyone who is at all influenced by Marxism is evil? That's a bit silly, if that's what you're saying.

Which isn't to say there aren't a bunch of professors I'm amazed have been given tenure. We've seen some of them in the media over the years. I do think there's something wrong with a school that gave tenure to that crazed dude (forget his name)who said the Twin Towers were filled with little Eichmanns, for example.

Not sure what you think you're being lied to about. John Derbyshire is a racist (self-described!) and so is Robert Weissberg. And at that white nationalist conference Weissberg gave a talk called "A Politically Viable Alternative to White Nationalism".

They're hardcore racists. As in, they're not just racists, but their racism is one of their main obsessions in life, and they seek to influence others with it. And two of them have been writing for the National Review.

I don't see the greater virtue of the Marxist preference for killing millions for political reasons rather than racial ones. That certainly is a leftist blind spot. The Marxists do have the impressive claim to fame of being more proficient at something than the Germans - genocide. In fact, in order to out do the Germans, the Marxist had to resort to racial extermination too, although I'm sure they didn't really like having to that. It's so bourgeois.

The Marxists also don't have the minor virtue to admit to their evil past. They say those were not real Marxist who did that, and we can do it right.

That makes Marxists professors far more dangerous than Nazis. Nobody is dumb enough to listen to the Nazis.

I was considering weighing in to the discussion of whether or not Robert Weissberg is a racist, but I think I threw my back out trying to care.

I will note, however, that Oaf confuses racialism with racial supremacy. AmRen is the former -- it is concerned with advancing the cause of white Americans. Think "white version of the NAACP". Like the NAACP it is undeniably both racist and racialist, but not race-supremacist.

Perhaps their explanation is correct. However, it does seem that most of the corrections to the original narrative tend to exonerate Zimmerman rather than implicate him. So many corrections: he didn't say coon, he doesn't weigh 220 lbs, he didn't call 911 forty six times in the space of a a year, and he did have injuries on his face and head. When so many facts are reported wrongly, one suspects the press not of being wrong but of being fraudulent.....We're all agreed that those two shooters in Oklahoma are guilty and that they committed an awful crime. No one is rushing to their defense. The defense of Zimmerman is not some subtle form of racism. It is the wish to defend a possibly innocent man.

When they passed the bill, they could not call it a tax. Ann mentioned in her blog with Wright that it was not possible to, because the initiative could not have passed muster with younger folks.

So the bill DID NOT USE the authority of the constitution to tax. It is called a penalty. During the supreme court discussions, it was kind of an odd dance, which Ann tried to help us to understand. It was not called a tax for purposes of passing the bill, but in effect it is a tax. I could not follow this stuff, as it made no sense to me. I'm certain part of it was the language, but I suspect the other part is it makes no sense.

So that's the deal.

They couldn't call it a tax, because then young people, who are tapped out, would realize they were being taxed more. So they called it a penalty for not entering a private contract. The government can't require you to enter into a private contract, or at least, let's hope so.

In any event, I hope Obama gets re-elected, obamacare goes into full force, and the frog in the pot realizes its gonna die if it doesn't get out of the pot.

There a deliberate and malicious effort to miscast the meaning of what Zimmerman said, certainly. I have seen enough to enable me to conclude one way on that question. Only one inference can be drawn from the resulting quote.

Aside from that the rest is BS from both sides. Stop thinking about black and white and start thinking about the shoe being on he other foot and some white guy walking and a black block patrol guy shoots him dead and the police do what?

There is much in Zimmerman's story that is both plausible and self serving. I think it's obvious that he did follow Trayvon in such a way that Trayvon's suspicions and hostility were aroused. I'm sure that the fact that Trayvon was black was part of his motivation in following him. But, for all that, how can anyone be sure that Trayvon did not, as Zimmerman claims, throw the first punch? It does seem a witnessed fact that Trayvon was beating on Zimmerman......I wasn't there, and this is all supposition on my part, but, nonetheless, I'm leaning towards Zimmerman's narrative. I can lean this way without selectively editing the facts. The "jail Zimmerman" crowd weren't there either, and the fact that they advance their arguments with so misstatements proves their bias more than Zimmerman's guilt.k

in favor of finding segregated white enclaves I would think you'd want them concentrated all together, instead of out making converts. Plus you can keep an eye on them with 100 undercover feds instead of 1000.

"For some distance" -- Not really a strike; it could be a step or two, or it could be stalking for miles. How far did he follow him?

"Black kid gets uppity" -- Why are you speaking in racist dog whistles? What you meant to say is: "There was an altercation where witnesses report the younger man/child was on top of the older man beating his head into the pavement. The older man was calling for help; none came and he shot the younger man/child who was on top of him and bashing his head into the concrete."

"Days pass. Kid's parents are notified (finally)." -- By days, you mean "hours pass": "It was not yet 8 in the morning, barely 12 hours since the shooting that took place about 100 yards away, and Martin was still unaware of the fate of his son. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403)"

"Stop thinking about black and white" -- You mean Hispanic and black? You're the one talking about people getting uppity. Why don't you try to stop thinking about black and white?

You don't even have the basic facts of the case right, so don't lecture people on it. Go back, read about it, learn the facts, then come back. And when you do, try not to use racist language. It is beneath you.

Now, mind you, it is entirely possible everything we know is wrong about the case, that the witness statements are lies, etc.

But if you're going to believe that, you have to be up front you think it is a conspiracy, like some people are. If you want to talk about the case using the known facts though, it behooves everyone to use them as they are currently known.

Even with what we currently know, it is possible Zimmerman may be charged (and perhaps he should!), but to simply will him into a white guy who conspired with the police to hide Martin's body for days is wrong. There are facts on the ground you can use to try and convince people that he should be charged. Shooting off half-cocked is not helping.

LoafingOaf said...Now that we're learning there have been at least TWO disgusting white supremacists writing for The National Review, we need some sort of explanation from Rich Lowry about what exactly is going on at that magazine, as well as a statement letting us know whether or not they actually do oppose racism

Laugh out loud funny.

You blathering on about a "conservative magazine" while of course ignoring the fact that the last two-term President of the party you vote for proudly gave J. William Fulbright an unapologetic segregationist the Persidential Medial of Freedom, and ignoring the fact that the party you vote for sent a former KKK Kleagle to the US Senate for over 30 years, is beyond parody.

Loaf, study your history more closely. Communist regimes are just as hostile to their racial and ethnic minorities as Nazism was. And for the exact same reason: totalitarian regimes require someone to blame.

To the folks upthread who were claiming my posts about National Review writer Robert Weissberg were about nothing:

National Review's Rich Lowry announced tonight they are disassociating themselves from Weissberg just like Derbyshire.

Regarding Robert WeissbergBy Rich Lowry"Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism. He will no longer be posting here. Thanks to those who brought it to our attention."

The more modern reflective coatings on Mirror Sunglasses usually have several layers making them more durable and less likely to become scratched. While these sunglasses may be more expensive, you often get what you pay for when purchasing sunglasses.